Funny events in anti-woke world

[Silvanus]

You should do math before making a numerical claim. I spent a couple minutes in excel. If you make $500,000 in the UK, your income tax is $197,751.80 (I converted all numbers in gbp to dollars before calculating things, for comparison sake). Effective tax rate, 39.5%. If you make $500,000 in Portland, you combined federal, state, and local income tax is $202,534.60, effective tax rate 40.5%, without even hitting the top bracket. If you're curious like me, the breaking point where the person in Portland pays more is about $300,000.

Ok. Yep, opened up a spreadsheet and followed along. So if someone earning 500,000 lives specifically in Portland, Oregon, they will pay a marginal bit more than in the UK. Fine, although only the city's additional tax pushes it over.

The pertinent fact remains that someone earning the same amount almost anywhere else in the USA would pay less than in the UK. In seven states, where there are no state income taxes, they would pay ~9 percentage points less.

The US has a standard tax deduction, the first $12,950 of income isn't taxed, just your personal allowance, though admittedly slightly smaller, so there is technically a window in which some poor people would pay more in the US than in the UK, but the poorest pay 0 in both countries, and the median income pays more in the UK, so if you really need credit for the ~$3000 more untaxed income, we can call that one a wash.

Not quite the same, since claiming that standard deduction excludes you from other exemptions, whereas our personal allowance doesn't.

Abortion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Over the last decade, there have been 61 cases in the UK for "procuring an abortion". The last time a woman was prosecuted in the US for having an abortion was 1922. (Psssst... I think maybe your monarchic country might be more socially conservative than you think it is.)

Uhrm, yeah, those cases were brought for instances which did not meet the criteria for a legal abortion.

Just above that line in the same Wiki article, you can see that 200,000+ legal abortions were carried out in 2020. It's categorically, inarguably not illegal to have an abortion here.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Abortion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Over the last decade, there have been 61 cases in the UK for "procuring an abortion". The last time a woman was prosecuted in the US for having an abortion was 1922. (Psssst... I think maybe your monarchic country might be more socially conservative than you think it is.)

What the actual fuck are you even talking about?

In the US, women have been charged with murder for what under UK law is called "procuring an abortion."

The Abortion Act defines what is considered a legal abortion. Namely, it has to be performed by a registered medical professional and two registered medical professionals have to agree that the case meets the criteria stated in the act.

"Procuring an abortion" means deliberately attempting to cause a miscarriage outside of the conditions stipulated by the abortion act. This can mean illegally buying abortion drugs in order to give yourself a miscarriage, forcing or tricking someone else into taking abortion drugs or performing an abortion procedure while not being legally allowed to do so but before the point that it would be classified as child destruction.

Again, women in the US have been actually charged with murder for inducing their own miscarriages.

As someone who isn't a fan of the monarchy, and who would generally agree that this country is weird and socially conservative, just no. Not in this area at all. The abortion debate does not exist in the UK (outside of Northern Ireland). There is an almost complete political consensus on the need for legal abortion. Even the rabid Christian element of the Tories don't talk about overturning the abortion act because they know it would be political suicide. From a UK perspective, the situation around abortion in the US just looks fucking weird, because the battle is well and truly won here.

 

[Chimpzy]

brand new "Chez Nous".

Ooh, watch out, with that name they're liable to get sued for brand confusion by the local café from every Ardennes hamlet.

And the Belgian FN was a scandal ridden joke

Yeh, sure was/is.

 

[CaitSeith]

And now, something actually funny...


Chadtronic has a point: the real winners will be the speculators collectors who buy the M&M merchandise with the old Green design before it runs out...

 

[Buyetyen]

Conservatives: outraged that they can no longer get horny over M&Ms.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Conservatives: outraged that they can no longer get horny over M&Ms.

Also conservatives: outraged that people ARE getting horny over blue space lesbians in videogames.

 

[Buyetyen]

Also conservatives: outraged that people ARE getting horny over blue space lesbians in videogames.

Still conservatives: outraged that some people dress up in cartoon animal costumes and fuck.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Still conservatives: outraged that some people dress up in cartoon animal costumes and fuck.

Well they're right about that; people should only be allowed to fuck in M&M costumes. And only when they have their boots on.

 

[tstorm823]

Ok. Yep, opened up a spreadsheet and followed along. So if someone earning 500,000 lives specifically in Portland, Oregon, they will pay a marginal bit more than in the UK. Fine, although only the city's additional tax pushes it over.

The pertinent fact remains that someone earning the same amount almost anywhere else in the USA would pay less than in the UK. In seven states, where there are no state income taxes, they would pay ~9 percentage points less.

Yeah, but like, do you want to live in Alaska? There's gotta be some benefit.

Uhrm, yeah, those cases were brought for instances which did not meet the criteria for a legal abortion.

Yes, exactly. There are criteria for legal abortion. Republicans want there to be criteria for legal abortion.

In the US, women have been charged with murder for what under UK law is called "procuring an abortion."

No, they haven't.

 

[thebobmaster]

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" is supposed to be a joke statement, not a method of debate.

 

[BrawlMan]

Here's another case of somebody using black culture and then dropping it when they no longer need it. Then they get upset as soon as they're called out on it. I have nothing against the actress, but she should know better than that. You're fine in Shang-Chi, but I wonder if you're going to bring the "black accent" back, or they're going to even bother bringing her character back.

​

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

The Seville Township man accused of killing his wife last year has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, which has been accepted by 29th Circuit Court Judge Shannon Schlegel.

Troy Burke, 45, was charged with open murder and felony firearms in the Jan. 27, 2021 shooting death of his wife, Jessica Burke, 29, in their Elwell home.

He was ordered to undergo a competency examination conducted by state forensic psychologists who found that he was not criminally responsible for his actions at the time of the murder, according to Gratiot County Prosecutor Keith Kushion.

Once those results came back Kushion sought a second, independent psychiatric evaluation reviewing the same information as the first.

However, that evaluation “came to the same conclusion” as state forensic psychologists had – that Burke was not competent to stand trial, Kushion said.

Burke, who shot his wife three times and confessed later the same day, had told investigators during questioning that he had a “neuro-link” implanted in his brain at a hospital in Grand Rapids.

“He said that other people could read his thoughts,” Kushion noted.

Burke told police that he was getting messages on his tablet device from QAnon members telling him his wife a CIA asset who was involved in a sex trafficking ring and he needed to kill her.

“He also said that (President) Joe Biden had twins, a daughter and a son, and that the son had a sex change and that’s who his wife was,” Kushion said.

Burke had apparently been hospitalized several times in the past for psychological issues, Kushion added.

Judge Schlegel ordered Burke to undergo additional tests at the Michigan Center for Forensic Psychiatry in Ypsilanti for up to 60 days.

After that it will be determined whether or not Burke will spend the rest of his life in a state mental health institution.

 

[BrawlMan]

That monster knew exactly what he did. He just doesn't want to acknowledge it. If he gets sent to a mental institution, I will not feel anything for him. He'll be stuck there for the rest of his life, with little freedom.

 

[Terminal Blue]

No, they haven't.

Yes, they have.

Kenlissa Jones, a woman from Georgia, was charged with murder after taking abortion pills she bought online. The charges were later dismissed.

Purvi Patel, from Indiana, was also charged with fetal homicide after taking abortion pills. The prosecutor in her case argued that feticide laws meant that any woman attempting to end her own pregnancy could be charged, regardless of whether the baby in question died. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but released after a successful appeal.

Anna Yocca, from Tenessee, attempted to perform an abortion on herself using a wire coathanger. She gave birth to a severely premature baby who survived. She was charged with attempted murder and spent more than a year in prison awaiting trial. Prosecutors ultimately agreed to charge her with "attempted procurement of a miscarriage" (wait, that sounds kinda familiar..) on the condition that she plead guilty, which she did.

So yes, it literally has happened.

Not in the UK though, because conservative lawmakers in the UK aren't continually trying to redefine a foetus as a legally distinct person.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, they have.

Kenlissa Jones, a woman from Georgia, was charged with murder after taking abortion pills she bought online. The charges were later dismissed.

Purvi Patel, from Indiana, was also charged with fetal homicide after taking abortion pills. The prosecutor in her case argued that feticide laws meant that any woman attempting to end her own pregnancy could be charged, regardless of whether the baby in question died. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but released after a successful appeal.

Anna Yocca, from Tenessee, attempted to perform an abortion on herself using a wire coathanger. She gave birth to a severely premature baby who survived. She was charged with attempted murder and spent more than a year in prison awaiting trial. Prosecutors ultimately agreed to charge her with "attempted procurement of a miscarriage" (wait, that sounds kinda familiar..) on the condition that she plead guilty, which she did.

So yes, it literally has happened.

All 3 of those women gave birth. The abortion pills the first 2 were pills that induced live birth prematurely. Personally, I'm not inclined to see a difference between abortion and infanticide, but the law does factually draw a line between killing a fetus and giving birth with the intention of letting the child die.

Ironically enough, there's a strong argument that all 3 of your examples were actually protected by abortion law precedent. And like, if you google Purvi Patel, Wikipedia actually says " If her conviction had not been overturned, she would have been the first woman in the United States to be charged, convicted, and sentenced on a feticide charge". Thank you for providing evidence for my point.

 

[Buyetyen]

Thank you for providing evidence for my point.

Actually, your argument was that no women have ever been charged with murder for trying to induce an abortion in the US. And you are categorically, factually wrong. Again. Please keep the goalposts in their original place.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Actually, your argument was that no women have ever been charged with murder for trying to induce an abortion in the US. And you are categorically, factually wrong. Again. Please keep the goalposts in their original place.

That's tstorm's MO: Get proven wrong, change the argument, declare himself the winner.

 

[Terminal Blue]

All 3 of those women gave birth.

Yes.

That's what happens when you have an abortion. The purpose of having an abortion is to cause the foetus to be ejected from the body. That's why you're not typically allowed to have an abortion at the point there is a reasonable chance the foetus could survive being ejected from the body, because if it did survive that would be what we call "giving birth".

The abortion pills the first 2 were pills that induced live birth prematurely.

Yes.

Drugs that are used to induce birth are abortifacients when used to induce the "birth" of a foetus too premature to survive. That's what having an abortion is.

Personally, I'm not inclined to see a difference between abortion and infanticide, but the law does factually draw a line between killing a fetus and giving birth with the intention of letting the child die.

That line does not exist in any meaningful medical sense.

With extremely rare exceptions that are only used in emergencies, an abortion is not killing a foetus. You don't need to kill a foetus, it dies on its own. Again, this is why we draw the line where we do, because once there is a reasonable possibility that a foetus could survive medical professionals have an obligation to try and keep it alive. However, if inducing the birth of a foetus that dies as a result is murder, then all abortion is murder.

It isn't though. Not legally, and not by any meaningful stretch of reason.

Ironically enough, there's a strong argument that all 3 of your examples were actually protected by abortion law precedent. And like, if you google Purvi Patel, Wikipedia actually says " If her conviction had not been overturned, she would have been the first woman in the United States to be charged, convicted, and sentenced on a feticide charge". Thank you for providing evidence for my point.

You know she was convicted of a lesser offence, right?

Your "point" was trying to claim that abortion was illegal in the UK because people had been prosecuted for procuring an abortion, and that no woman in the US has been prosecuted for having an abortion since 1922. These are all examples of situations that would qualify as procuring an abortion in the UK (hence why Yocca was convicted of the functionally identical offence of "procuring a miscarriage") in which the women involved were charged with murder. They didn't serve out prison sentences for murder, but they were charged and held in prison, and they were all ultimately convicted of something.

So you were wrong on many counts. Abortion is legal in the UK, and far, far less controversial than it is in the US. Women in the US have been prosecuted for having abortions, because women have been prosecuted for performing abortions on themselves. Some have been charged with murder, although these charged have ended up being overturned in favour of lesser charges.

If you want to compare like with like, then the legal situation around abortion in the UK is far, far better than in many parts of the US.

 

[tstorm823]

Actually, your argument was that no women have ever been charged with murder for trying to induce an abortion in the US. And you are categorically, factually wrong. Again. Please keep the goalposts in their original place.

I did not say that.

That's what happens when you have an abortion. The purpose of having an abortion is to cause the foetus to be ejected from the body. That's why you're not typically allowed to have an abortion at the point there is a reasonable chance the foetus could survive being ejected from the body, because if it did survive that would be what we call "giving birth".

Yes. One of the 3 is still alive, one survived for 30 minutes, the third was believed based on the physiological development and size of umbilical cord to have been alive when it was left in a dumpster. Every one of those prosecutions happened because of a factual or presumed live birth. If surviving the ejection from the body means it is no longer an abortion, then none of these women aborted by your own logic (with the somewhat exception of the example where it may have dead on arrival, but the prosecutions case was reliant on it being born alive.)

However, if inducing the birth of a foetus that dies as a result is murder, then all abortion is murder.

I mean, this is morally true, but we are talking about the law here, and the law makes that distinction.

You know she was convicted of a lesser offence, right?

Your "point" was trying to claim that abortion was illegal in the UK because people had been prosecuted for procuring an abortion, and that no woman in the US has been prosecuted for having an abortion since 1922. These are all examples of situations that would qualify as procuring an abortion in the UK (hence why Yocca was convicted of the functionally identical offence of "procuring a miscarriage") in which the women involved were charged with murder. They didn't serve out prison sentences for murder, but they were charged and held in prison, and they were all ultimately convicted of something.

So you were wrong on many counts. Abortion is legal in the UK, and far, far less controversial than it is in the US. Women in the US have been prosecuted for having abortions, because women have been prosecuted for performing abortions on themselves. Some have been charged with murder, although these charged have ended up being overturned in favour of lesser charges.

If you want to compare like with like, then the legal situation around abortion in the UK is far, far better than in many parts of the US.

I don't deserve this to be this easy, but sometimes the stars align in one person's favor, and today that person is me. You have argued that a fetus being ejected while being able to survive is "giving birth". You gave three examples of fetuses either provably or plausibly capable of surviving that ejection. Thus, all three gave birth. Giving birth and then letting the infant die through negligence is infanticide, which is a more serious crime (as far as the law is concerned), so yes, pleading down to "procuring a miscarriage" is taking a lesser sentence, because they weren't charging her for abortion, they were charging her for infanticide. But here's the beautiful part: she plead down to that charge, rather than what they were prosecuting her for. So.......... she wasn't actually prosecuted for procuring an abortion.

It's just beautiful when something comes together like that. Pedantry aside, US laws stopped prosecuting women for seeking abortions a century ago so that when they prosecuted the abortion providers, the women couldn't invoke the 5th amendment to avoid testifying against them. Thus, all the anti-abortion laws in the US are formulated to criminalize the providers and treat the woman having the abortions as secondary victims. We don't prosecute women for getting an abortion, we stopped even considering it long before Roe v Wade even happened.

 

[Trunkage]

Bullshit, that's a lie. Source, I went to a community college *and* a state school.

Just to be clear. There are some free community college and state school in the US. Because they are free, I wonder if you can guess what they are full of...

Rich kids. And they take up all the free spaces. Because they need handouts.

It why you don't really hear about free Universities. The rich don't want you there